Dan Glazebrook is a freelance political writer who has written for RT, Counterpunch, Z magazine, the Morning Star, the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent and Middle East Eye, amongst others. His first book “Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis” was published by Liberation Media in October 2013. It featured a collection of articles written from 2009 onwards examining the links between economic collapse, the rise of the BRICS, war on Libya and Syria and 'austerity'. He is currently researching a book on US-British use of sectarian death squads against independent states and movements from Northern Ireland and Central America in the 1970s and 80s to the Middle East and Africa today.

The election result shows the Scottish people have rejected a virulent British colonial nationalism responsible for millions of deaths in Iraq, Libya, and in the Mediterranean every week, Dan Glazebrook, political writer and journalist told RT.

RT:Scotland formerly a Labour bastion has
gone almost completely to the SNP.How did that happen?

Dan Glazebrook: It was largely expected. A lot
of this to do with the absolute kind of arrogance and this
disdainful attitude towards what was dismissed as this kind of
nationalism that has been displayed by all the English
establishment parties. In fact what the result has done – [it]
has shown that the Scottish people have rejected a virulent
British colonial nationalism that has been responsible for
millions of deaths in Iraq, and now in Libya, and in the
Mediterranean every week.

This is an existing, horrifying nationalism, the British
nationalism, and that lies behind these colonial wars, that lies
behind the ideology that Britain is always right and always has
the right of meddling in other people’s business. This created an
absolute disaster across the Middle East and North Africa. This
is a big part of what has been rejected in Scotland. The SNP has
been saying: “We don’t want to be a part of this militarism, we
don’t want nuclear weapons, we don’t want to be part of this
colonial entity that throws its weight around the world and tries
to still act as an empire. We want no part of it!” This is
virulent and vicious British nationalism that has been rejected.
I think that is often forgotten when English politicians talk
with distain about this nationalism that is so terrifying.

RT:The referendum last year was a close
call, now when they’ve got almost all the Scottish seats in
Westminster that referendum was supposed to vote out a question
for a generation. How likely is that, is it going to
resurface?

DG: Of course it will resurface, it is
inevitable, it is even more inevitable now that we have a Tory
majority government because the Scots are not Tories, they are
not like the majority of English voters who consistently vote
Tory.

Even before the SNP the Tories never had mass support in
Scotland. The trajectory of Scottish nationalism is quite
well-known; they are particularly alienated by the fact that
during the 1980’s when obviously closing down of the steel works
and the coal mines particularly affected and hit the hardest on
Scotland and Wales....

The promises made have not been fulfilled. It was really
revealing - the day after the referendum in Scotland Cameron’s
immediate response was not: “Ok, we would better implement ‘devo
max’ like we promised”, no, it was: “...How dare these Scots
raise the issue of independence. We are going to shut them out of
Westminster decision making all together!” This is the kind of
attitude that Scots are faced with and rejecting decisively.

RT:Cameron says he'll let the nation decide
whether to stay part of the EU. Unshackled from coalition, do you
think London's relationship with Brussels will change?

DG: It is not a good relationship already; it is
not going to improve. I think they will hold the referendum; the
referendum will vote to stay in the EU. Obviously Cameron is
going to use the prospect of Britain leaving to try and basically
blackmail the EU to get as many concessions from them as
possible, especially on the issue of being able to have more
basically racist immigration controls. Relations are not going to
improve. Britain is going to stay in the EU, but it is going to
be increasingly a difficult relationship, I think.

RT:The Conservatives upped their
anti-immigration rhetoric recently. Did this make the difference,
do you think? Did it help them convert UKIP voters?

DG: Possibly. Certainly, the elections
increasingly and unfortunately in the UK or at least in England
tend to resemble kind of racist options in which all parties try
to outbid each other in who can have the harshest policy on
immigration. We saw this ridiculous kind of policies of Labour
saying: “Oh, we’ll stop immigrants claiming benefits for two
years.” And Tories saying: “I will stop them claiming benefits
for years.” But the whole thing is nonsense because generally 99
percent of immigrants don’t claim benefits, they come over here
to work, and that is the whole point. So they are not on benefits
generally. But the point is the rhetoric... Labour [and] Tories
are certainly trying to win back support from UKIP on these
grounds. But the Tories are more trusted, I suppose, when it
comes to having more kind of harsh policies towards immigrants.
Historically there is no reason why they should be more trusted;
Labour has been such as harsh towards immigrants historically as
the Tories.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.